jabog32_zillion

since everyone is posting quite strange speculating OT here, i might aswell... THERE IS NO PROOF, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. All that ED can do is to get as many sources as possible. Starting from way out, i would say its impossible as a human to be objective and unbiased. We are all in favour of our own toy planes. Of course there is science and math, it tells us for example that russian planes aerodynamics are advanced, but even if Nato found this, it wouldn't admitt it and no one in the western world would know about it until someone would try to make another series of tests, which again was only possible after the fall of the wall 1989. If the russians would have told us before, it would have been stated but not officially proofed, thus NOT empirical... When Gallileo stated the world was a ball and not a plane because he saw the curvature with his telescope on arriving ships 10-15 km away on the horizon no one believed him until someone else actually sailed around the the ball... That's how stubborn empirical science is and no one has learned ever since. Of course there is common sense, it tells us for example that the Flanker, our Flanker at least, does NOT carry ARH missiles. Which means the F15 might have some advanteges in BVR. And there is stupid patriotic discussions in which we can state our own unimportant speculations about the superiority of one of the sides. Personally I'm a fan of the russians. :) :) :) BECAUSE :) :) :) They always had the greater scientists. Better planes, better weapons, and we are ALL (even most russians) victims of western propaganda. The R77 is advanded to the Aim120 in weight and design and maneuverability and Sukhoi always made the best flight models in the world, which are until now a mystery for science. but who cares. greetings & stop hijacking this thread.

thx GG... nice explanation, and ur right the the introduction of the missile antenna (missile FoV) is a neat and decent step. About, the math, disregarding I didn't quite follow, I would still say... That was theoretical.... :) You didn't take the aspect angle into account or at least didnt mention it... Like a hot or cold target does't move much, whereas a flanking or even worse beaming target leaves the the 5° degrees much faster... regards Zillion Edit: So maybe a beaming defensive has finally become the most efficient, as it should be. Because until now the cold defensive unless fired in no escape, prooved to be the safest in LOMAC

what was the FoV limit for successful reacquire before 1.11 ? Was there any ? Was it the full gimbal limit ? Ok... i think it was the full gimbal limit, just before it didn't put the antenna to the last known position. I think(&hope) 5 degrees off last known position is better than before...

Interesting to see how fast information gets lost in OT discussion the higher the number of pages in a thread... We have several tracks of 120's losing datalink, going nearly 80 degrees off initially locked target and acquiring a friendly... Therefore i really appreciate the reduction of gimbal limits How far was the CAC distance for russians before ? 15 km ? Does that mean my R27 will have an even better chance of hitting, if radar lock was broken shortly by wax on wax off the the ECM, or the target passes a high mountain shortly as long it is within a 5 degree cone after reacquiring. ? Looking forward to a new dimension the eagle drivers FF... :) Zillion

Hi brothers, really nice to see you are still working on it, and found some time to make this update. I'm really curious how you made your altitude map terrain masking calculations, I'm twisting my brain lately thinking about a nice way to do that. If you have time and patience, i would be happy to learn some from your algo. regards Zillion

Work in Progress Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF Size is 23823, 16454 Coordinate System is: PROJCS["WGS 84 / UTM zone 36N", GEOGCS["WGS 84", DATUM["WGS_1984", SPHEROID["WGS 84",6378137,298.2572235630016, AUTHORITY["EPSG","7030"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","6326"]], PRIMEM["Greenwich",0], UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433], AUTHORITY["EPSG","4326"]], PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"], PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",0], PARAMETER["central_meridian",33], PARAMETER["scale_factor",0.9996], PARAMETER["false_easting",500000], PARAMETER["false_northing",0], UNIT["metre",1, AUTHORITY["EPSG","9001"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","32636"]] Origin = (-183222.766299,5608045.577484) Pixel Size = (71.73168418,-71.73168418) Metadata: AREA_OR_POINT=Area Corner Coordinates: Upper Left ( -183222.766, 5608045.577) ( 23d24'47.41"E, 50d13'39.00"N) Lower Left ( -183222.766, 4427772.446) ( 25d 1'56.90"E, 39d43'32.21"N) Upper Right ( 1525641.146, 5608045.577) ( 47d15'36.26"E, 49d44'23.60"N) Lower Right ( 1525641.146, 4427772.446) ( 44d53'35.75"E, 39d23'11.90"N) Center ( 671209.190, 5017909.012) ( 35d11'0.52"E, 45d17'37.72"N) Band 1 Block=23823x1 Type=Int16, ColorInterp=Gray

when a plane is climbing 90 straight up the groundspeed equals zero... same when descending... It will get more stable but lag behind if u take 4 updates and calculate the average... :) but in fact my groundspeeds are just fine... even if a plane is turning hard, as long as it is not turning for over 15 seconds... But give it a rest, brothers, its same in reality...

@Brothers31 for speed calculation you simply take the distance between 2 updates with a phytagoras, the result in LockOn Units will be meters, then you see how many seconds have passed with the exported model time and calculate km/h from it... it should be simple... @GGTharos Most radar screens don't show heading, instead they show a PTL (Predicted Track Line) which is a line from the last history symbol through the contact and extending to the front. This can be of variable size, depending on the time setting... To show you where a contact will be in 30 secs, 1 min and so on, providing it will continue it's course. When flying curves the PTL will drag behind the actual heading...

BETA 3 Download -Added new Radar types and modified ranges 1L13 EWR 300km 55G6 EWR 300km S-300PS 64H6E sr 180km Patriot STR 170km S-300PS 40B6M tr 160km S-300PS 40B6MD sr 120km Buk SR 100km Hawk SR 90km Hawk TR 90km Kub STR 75km Dog Ear rdr 35km Roland rdr 35km Osa 9A33 30km Tor 9A331 25km -Added static(undestroyable) Airport Radars, until now with fixed range of 390km -Changed update intervall back to 5 seconds which is more realistic and gives some meaning to the history dots... -Added the Kuz I will not implement radars with ranges less than 25 km since most of them are to small and do not transmitt data to other stations, thus are unrealistic.

You can see it working on the JaBoG32_Dedi Server... http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/atc/ATC_85.swf Please dont spam with the chat or cheat... Password will be integrated soon... enter your name and leave the server IP blank... it will connect to the JaBoG32 dedi...

:) Nice game for all wanna be ATC's http://www.polymoon.org/tobi/privat/Tracon.zip I already played this game when a 386 was still high end :) future thoughts: -Mountains should be implemented (simplified) -Aspect Ratio + target size should be considered -Radar detection should be in accordance to target altitude -Scanbar should be visible and updates in a stepping manner thx Plancton and the makers of tracon for all the inspiration... I read some formulas in the other thread concernig radar cones and detection radius, please post again if available. I talked to JaBoG32_Dirty, who is Airbus Pilot, and got told that radars have blind spot directly on top of them since they cant scan all the way up, how does it behave ? Some help on the radar attributes recherche would be really nice... To the Dev's: Custom fix points other than the return points would be really awesome...

BETA 2 Download -Following Radars are working and Selectable: Buk SR 100 km 1L13 EWR 100 km 55G6 EWR 120 km S-300PS 40B6MD 120 km S-300PS 64H6E 200 km Dog Ear Radar 35 km Edit: -They should also be destroyable now... please test -Airport Radar(s) (RLS P-37) or AWACS are not working...

always expect the unexpected, murphys law, if something can go wrong, it will go wrong + overworked and to hot to think in germany... :) i will need more time...

worked until 04:30 am... Radar Circles in place and collision working !!! Still only 7 from 21 Airports implemented...(33%) Scrolling and zooming not yet restricted to Radar Detection Range... New Version coming tonight...

I´m in Spain until monday evening and i haven´t finished the radar detection circles or the implementetation of the other airport maps yet, so i will post a link for an updated version around wendnesday i guess. thx for all your comments. I´m not so sure about the AWACS. I think its a lot of work to implement an altitude map to figure out if some plane is hidden. What i could try to do is fake the whole thing by simply defining mountain areas and hide planes as long as they are, say below 100 metres of altitude ? But that´s also quite a lot of work, so it´s more of a long term goal. later Zillion

Thomp, in case you were asking about how to convert the normal degrees to decimal degrees for your taxiway points, rather than finding out about the complex degrees to UTM conversion, it's very simple. if you have for example 45 degrees, 6 minutes, 0 seconds it converts to 45,1 degrees... You leave the integer degrees as they are and add the seconds behind the comma... so one second equals 1/3600 Another Example: 45 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds = 45 degrees + 624 seconds*1/3600 equals 45.17333333333333333333333333333333 decimal degrees Valery Blazhnov from the Lock On Development Team has also once very impressivly posted the formula for the degrees to UTM conversion which is little more complex, to say the least... hope it helped...

After things have become very stable and I have moved to a 2 second intervall, I am now about to implement the local-mode based on the radar types available in LockOn. I am going to implement the: -AWACS A-50 Mainstay which will cover the whole area -AWACS E-3 Sentry which will cover the whole area -AWACS E-2C which will cover the whole area -S300 64H6E with a detection Range of 200 km -S300 40B6MD with a detection Range of 120 km -1L13 EWR with a detection Range of 120 km -55G6 EWR with a detection Range of 120 km -9S117M1 (Buk Search Radar) with a detection Range of 100 km -9S86 (Dog Ear Radar) with a detection Range of 35 km Additionally all airports are optionally selectable with a -RLS PRW-37 with a detection Range of 390 km Aircraft outside the circular detection radius will not be drawn, scrolling the map or zooming out to far will be impossible. With a pop menu the controller will be able to jump from one location to the next. All Radars are selectable, means they will only be detecting things if the controller selects them in the options menu before joining the game. Of course all radars will aswell be destroyable, so obviously the won't work if they are destroyed. After setting the radar options the controller will not be able to change them without rejoining. All other controllers will be informed about the radar options one chooses, so cheating will be impossible. If anyone has some suggestions or corrections please let me know. Zillion

You mean a message private :) ? Yes Thanks i got it... How can i modify the client-socket without source code ? I was busy working on my own server meantime... It's written in Java and seems to work very well by now, provided it runs on the same host as the lockon server, same as in LOTATC... It also works if its run on another host just the history symbols seem to lag little in that case... So I think i stick to my java server... Anyway thx alot again for your offer !!! :) regards, Zillion

-Fixed all the bugs that I know of...(Players not moving, Names not showing etc.) -Added detailed Airport Maps.(Still Work in Progress, 13 more to implement) -Added Lat,Long Info for Bullseye. New version coming soon. :) Zillion

check page 2 of this thread for an explanation of the functions... :) About the processing of Digital Elevation Maps, I think they far off my own and flashs capabilities... sry to say so. edit: The red numbers on the green line are in fact not documented... It's the ruler option. Press "R" to activate the normal ruler and "B" for the Bullseye ruler. Left side is heading, right side is distance. Default is KM, switch it to miles with the Imperial button...

dont take it personal, just i haven't seen anything from you except for requests and criticism... sometimes very constructive criticism, sometime not... and terrain masking in my opinion could only be simulated very roughly if at all, because we dont have terrain data or occlusion radar collision data... what we could do is try to define areas of mountain valleys and simultaneously check altitude... really got your words in a wrong throat before, sry for picking. maybe you should ask the person you know, how he did it... | | | \/ thx, me neither... in fact i'm quite happy some ppl are interested at all

Hi again, We did some more testing and i hope our squad will settle on using the java CommServer on the same machine as the lockon server, putting our export.lua on 127.0.0.1.... Because it runs much better :) Brothers31, kind of you and thank you for your offer... I dont know if you know what a Flash Socket requires... If you want to help me i would be more than happy to test your solid c++ server for my project. In Flash all Comms go via a so called XML Object, that means that our export sting is tagged in XML tags... Like so: socket.try(c:send(string.format("<P>%d</P><M>%.2f:%s:%s:%f:%f:%f</M>\0", k, t, v.Name, v.Coalition, v.LatLongAlt.Lat, v.LatLongAlt.Long, v.LatLongAlt.Alt))) The end of a string is terminated by a null character \0... We can use ANY simple multithreading broadcast server that sends all recieved data back to all connected clients except back to the lockon server thread, because that seems to crash lockon after some time... If you could provide something like that to us, as I said i would be really happy to try it. GGTharos, I respect your opinions, sometimes somehow i cant agree and neither dot.net nor java nor flash is a "gaping hole"... start some coding, do something creative and judge if you know what you are saying, too much critisism on things you dont seem to know makes you look little pathetic... ;) I used 3424 lines of code on this project and I saw it running well after all, still think it looks pretty much like this or this which is a real recording from munich airport provided by JaBoG32_Woody who works there... So if, whoever is interested in playing a simulation, wants to try it. The first version i can gurantee to work pretty OK is here for DOWNLOAD Known issues: - The checking players can run forever if the player who sent the first data disconnects while the checking is in progress - The histories can mess up if you have a slow server/java server - The name can mess up for unknown reasons - Some players may not show at all... - Players will sit between the Krim peninsula and Ukraine for 25 seconds before they start moving, this is normal and not a BUG Read Readme... For now thats all... will be back when its rock solid or new features are implemented, or, if Brothers31 makes a nice server for me... Zillion

doug, that is the starting position... All planes start moving after about 4 updates later when the array of histories for each plane has its minimum length of 5 updates. little bit more patience you will need... And... You dont need to press the AWACS button.... It is in fact OPTIONAL... Anyway, I did quite some tests yesterday again, and think after all that even if all AI units always show smooth histories, multiplayer pilots are also able to do so. The problem seems to be more theJavaServer i am using than any edgy loops in the export.lua like i assumed yesterday. After starting and restarting the java server everything seems to run smooth for real pilots aswell, for about 15 minutes, when it starts to get out of tune again. Therefore i am searching for some alternative. And will try implement it as fast as possible. Maybe i should ask Brothers31 if he can give me a small version of his backend, providing it runs more reliable and i cant find anything more stable myself... It's just not worth putting all the time to this project if i can't get it running properly and continously... so far, wish me luck, it think it would be worh it zillion

i dont see at all why we shouldnt use AWACS planes or any other radars that provide in game AWACS uplink... It's most realistic. But if ur tired of hearing everything twice simply replace your wav files and disable the subtitles, if thats possible. The uplink will stop for you, and the radar for the controller once the AWACS is down... Another way is to select the A50, E-3A, E-2C but give it a task of "nothing", it wont say a word, nor will the uplink work... Maybe i dont understand you, but what is the problem about it...